ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is th

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:55:09 -0500
Message-id: <475DEDFD.4020104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
aarsic@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I"m thinking of you so I wouldn't be surprised if you called :-)
> 
> No, this works for me for people that I feel strong ties and connections or 
>emotions with, not everyone in the world! It is not scientific, but John and 
>Karen were able to clarify where this might not or does not fit within quantum 
>mechanics, which is what I was asking about in the first place.
> 
> On this part: In particular, it seems to me that you would  
>> need to do some sort of study in which, every time you think of  
>> someone, you document it.  Then, if the person in question doesn't  
>> call, you need find some way of determining that he or she was also  
>> thinking of you at the same time.  How you'd do that without spoiling  
>> the data seems to me frankly impossible.  (Call this the "Don't think  
>> of a white elephant" problem for your claims. :-)
> 
> Not only spoiling data, but spoiling the experience, so I'm not interested in 
>being the discoverer of this phenomenon scientifically speaking, but in 
>reading about it. It's more of a curiosity and let's say a phenomenon of mine, 
>not something I put my belief in (I have religion for that).
> 
> You really want the ridiculous - if I dream of a tornado and we get one 
>(after the dream) my mother thinks I caused it! Talk about preposterous.    (01)

Jung talked about synchronicity ...    (02)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity    (03)

which related acausal events, but described both collective unconscious 
and objective reality ...    (04)

Different scenario. Musicians in a band. (I'm a guitar player) Let's 
call them, The Police. The situation is not acausal, but the experience 
implies collective unconscious (propinquity) and objective reality.    (05)

BTW - I don't think they got it quite right with the album ...    (06)

Science is a work in progress and while I'm at Tucson VIII, I'll spend 
some time at the conference and, if I'm lucky, some other time with the 
Pasqua-Yaquis.    (07)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Separate_Reality    (08)

Pat H.: Stuart Hameroff was asking for you a few weeks ago. He recalled 
a debate from the mid 90s, that ended in an arcane Frank Zappa.    (09)

> --
> Have a Good Day!
> Antoinette Arsic
> 
>  -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
>> On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:19 AM, aarsic@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> No, I don't agree with that. I don't get calls from people who are  
>>> furthest from my mind.
>> What's your phone number?  I'll bet I can falsify that claim. :-)
>>
>>> And I strongly think of people often and would like them to call and  
>>> they don't, and I get frustrated enough to let it go, only to find  
>>> out a month or two later that they were thinking of me and had  
>>> written notes to call me but didn't.
>> You have verified this in every case, or even in a non-trivial  
>> percentage of cases, where you've "strongly thought" of someone?   
>> Sorry, I find that utterly preposterous.
>>
>>> There is something there that I can't explain, and if science can't  
>>> explain it then science just hasn't gotten there yet. But I know the  
>>> energies that I experience with others.
>> Well, I obviously can't deny that you *experience* something, but  
>> until you can come up with some reasonably hard data rather than  
>> feelings and anecdotes, I don't think you've got any real  
>> justification for your belief that there's anything more than  
>> coincidence involved.  In particular, it seems to me that you would  
>> need to do some sort of study in which, every time you think of  
>> someone, you document it.  Then, if the person in question doesn't  
>> call, you need find some way of determining that he or she was also  
>> thinking of you at the same time.  How you'd do that without spoiling  
>> the data seems to me frankly impossible.  (Call this the "Don't think  
>> of a white elephant" problem for your claims. :-)
>>
>> -chris
>>
>>      (010)

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (011)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>